London Local Authorities and Transport for London Bill
	 Ordered,
	That so much of the Lords Message [22nd October] as relates to the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Bill be now considered.
	 Resolved,
	That the promoters of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Bill which was originally introduced in this House, on 25th January 2005, should have leave to suspend any further proceedings on the bill in order to proceed with it, if they think fit, in the next session of Parliament according to the provisions of Private Business Standing Order 188A  (Suspension of bills).— [ The Chairman of Ways and Means .]
	Private Bills [ Lords] (Suspension)
	 Ordered ,
	That so much of the Lords Message [22nd October] as relates to the Bournemouth Borough Council Bill [ Lords] be now considered.
	 Resolved,
	That this House concurs with the Lords in their Resolution .— [ The Chairman of Ways and Means .]
	 Ordered ,
	That so much of the Lords Message [22nd October] as relates to the Manchester City Council Bill [ Lords] be now considered.
	 Resolved,
	That this House concurs with the Lords in their Resolution .— [ The Chairman of Ways and Means .]
	  Ordered ,
	That so much of the Lords Message [22nd October] as relates to the Transport for London (Supplemental Toll Provisions) Bill [ Lords] be now considered.
	 Resolved,
	That this House concurs with the Lords in their Resolution .— [ The Chairman of Ways and Means .]

David Cameron: But why does the Prime Minister think that he knows best how to spend than money, rather than the head teachers? This is a serious issue for schools up and down the country. Let me quote some head teachers. They say that it is "unjust", and "an ill-conceived idea". One says that it "undermines" governors' authority, while another says that it "destroys the trust" between schools and the Government. Why does the Prime Minister think that those head teachers are wrong and that he is right?

Gordon Brown: They were agreed after a long process of consultation involving all the parties. I have just quoted the Scottish Conservative leader saying that he supported the single ballot paper, and let me quote Mr. Gould again. He says,
	"I don't think I would absolve any party"
	and
	"'Party self-interest' in this context is not necessarily related to one party."
	This was not a failure of one party or one institution; it was to do with decisions that we should have made together and with decisions that we have now made to change the system.

Gordon Brown: I think that my hon. Friend will agree that we have led the way on climate change and will continue to lead the way. Yes, we will review the fees and tariff proposal that she puts forward, but I must say that our decision to have a renewable obligation on the companies has been one that is yielding results and that will continue to yield results in the future. I do not hide from the House the difficult decisions that will have to be made about how we reach our targets on renewables. People will have to face up, as she has said, to the need to use wind turbines both on land and on sea.

David Heath: The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) differs from the Liberal Democrats on dividing on the matter. We still believe that the principle is important. I accept that the Under-Secretary has travelled a great distance on all sorts of matters—she knows that I appreciate that. Indeed, even on the issue that we are considering, the proposal is much better than what the Government previously suggested. The process that has been outlined is clearly better than what was previously described. I simply want her to take that last little step because it will convey an important signal about what we hope to achieve in the Bill.
	I do not believe that there is a huge practical difference between the amount of consultation that has been offered and concurrence, which we believe to be so important. It is inconceivable that the Lord Chancellor would make a political appointment that did not have the support or at least the acceptance of the Lord Chief Justice. The stakes have been raised too high in terms of public and professional acceptability if the Lord Chief Justice were to make a report or simply make public his or her lack of confidence in the person appointed to the post of chairman.
	Our acceptance of the principle that the chairman should be a lay member is important to the board's independence. I am pleased that we included that in the Bill because it means that we have a guarantee of independence from the legal profession. That also guarantees credibility among the wider public. However, credibility must also be shared by the judiciary and the legal profession. In the context that we considering, I do not perceive the Lord Chief Justice as head of profession—that would be wrong. If it were suggested that the president of the Bar Council or of the Law Society should have any sort of handle on the final appointment, that would be wrong, because it would mean accepting a legal closed shop, which, I hope, we are busting wide open in the process.
	However, as head of the judiciary and in a specific context in our constitutional arrangements, the position of Lord Chief Justice has changed. It is one of the great offices of state. The seal of approval from an independent judiciary as well as Ministers and the House is to be encouraged. I therefore hold to the view that concurrence is a more satisfactory arrangement and that the House should insist on it. I shall advise my hon. Friends to vote against the Government amendments.

Kevan Jones: It is like Groundhog day because we have gone over the arguments on numerous occasions. The Under-Secretary has ably conducted proceedings on the Bill and the Government have taken on not only constructive amendments and representations from Back Benchers but even some suggestions from the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly).
	I do not understand why Liberal Democrats want to divide the House—
	 It being one hour after the commencement of proceedings, Mr. Deputy Speaker  put the remaining Questions required to be put at that hour, pursuant to Order [this day].

Alan Beith: I shall refer to that letter as well, because it throws a good deal of light on the process that is being modified by Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 4. I received a copy of the letter that was sent to Northumberland county council, with a covering letter from the Minister. The letter referred directly to the referendum result. It said
	"the Districts rely heavily on the 2004 referendum, which produced a majority against the single unitary option",
	and went on to say
	"it is significant that in that referendum the single unitary option nevertheless had significant support".
	I am sure that when the Minister was elected to Parliament, candidates from Opposition parties had "significant support" in the ballot box, but it is the Minister who is sitting there now, not them. When the hon. Member for Blyth Valley was elected, members of other parties had "significant support"; but he is the one who is sitting there, because he won the election. That was the verdict of the people.

Lords amendment: No. 48, in page 31, leave out lines 23 and 24 and insert—
	"(3) An order under subsection (1) must relate to a single year and must be
	made at least six months before—
	(a) the local election day in that year, or
	(b) if earlier, the date of the poll at the European Parliamentary general election in that year.
	(3A) For this purpose "the local election day" in a particular year is—
	(a) the first Thursday in May, or
	(b) if an order has been made under section 37(1)(b) (power to change date of council and Assembly elections) in relation to that year, the day specified in the order."
	 Amendment proposed to the Lords amendment: (a), leave out 'six' and insert 'twelve'.— [ Alistair Burt.]
	 Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:— 
	 The House divided: Ayes 205, Noes 283.

Andrew Stunell: Once again, we have a group of Lords amendments that move the Bill in the right direction. Specifically in this case, they do so in the direction of common sense and away from barminess, as the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire suggests. The original provisions were barmy and restrictive; now they are simply restrictive, and we should be thankful for that.
	In the Public Bill Committee, the Government were able to adduce no evidence that their preference for the systems proposed would produce better local government, which might have justified their intentions. Nor were the Government able to source the proposal for an elected executive. Switzerland and Portugal are new to me, because the best that they could come up with at the time was Stockton in the north-east. I had cause to speak to my colleagues on Stockton council, including the then mayor, and she told me that the council never considered that model and that it was a proposal made by the chief executive and the leader of the council without reference to anybody else. Perhaps not surprisingly, when we took evidence from Local Government Association representatives, they were baffled as to the source. Their collective response can be summed up as, "Not me, guv." I am delighted that my colleagues in the other place, supported by Conservative and Cross-Bench colleagues, have secured the removal of that provision.
	I do not understand the Government's love-in with the strong executive leadership model. There is no evidence to show that it leads to better running local authorities. It may not lead to worse run local authorities either, but the work of the Audit Commission was decisive. If the Government wish to persist with the proposal, I hope that they will not return to the House until they have evidence to show that the upheaval and sense of alienation that it would produce among those who participate in local government would be justified by improvements in efficiency, delivery of service, public engagement or any other positive for local democracy.
	We should have the same freedom for local authorities to decide their own governance systems as we automatically give to others. If internal self-rule is good enough for Gibraltar, it should be good enough for Guildford. If it is good enough for Bermuda, it should be good enough for Birmingham; and if it is good enough for the Falklands, it should be good enough for Fareham. The Government should take their hands off local councils' internal governance systems. They should recognise that local councils, if they are given the flexibility, will manage themselves effectively and efficiently. More to the point, they will be better able to engage their constituents in the running of their local democracy.

Robert Syms: I too welcome what the Minister has said, especially about dropping the directly elected executive proposal. We started the Bill with an evidence session, and it was very useful. When we tried to identify from whence the proposal came, the Government said that it came from the LGA, but the LGA suggested that it came from the Government. After due process in both Houses, people have concluded that the proposal is not worth running with. The Government are probably wise not to die in a ditch for it, nor for other associated problems such as the idea that vacancies should be filled by election, and so on.
	I want to pick up as well on what has been said about the modified committee system. Those of us who grew up in local government with the committee system in place believe that it is perfectly reasonable and needs only a few modifications. It is a pity that local government has not been given more latitude, although I am not sure that I go all the way with the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell). Too much latitude would allow local authorities with a certain political agenda to set up a system that would make it very difficult for minorities. Minorities on councils have to be protected, as all the political parties are very much in the minority in councils all over the country and we would certainly expect to have our say.
	 Lords amendment No. 52 agreed to.
	 Lords amendments Nos. 53 to 56 agreed to.

John Healey: Like my predecessor, I have been in discussion with Members who represent Stoke-on-Trent and I was pleased to announce the start of the work of the democracy commission in Stoke. It is an important piece of work being carried out by an authoritative group of people. They will be fully mindful of the Bill's provisions, and once the Bill receives Royal Assent I will ensure they have the relevant details so that they can take them into account, as my hon. Friend encourages me to do.
	The amendments ensure that when the result of a referendum is positive, the authority must resolve the change within 28 days to avoid the risk of a long time lag. Furthermore, where governance arrangements have been put in place as the result of a referendum, a further referendum will be required to change them. It is right that if the public have decided on a particular form of governance, the public should decide on changes to those arrangements in future.
	Most of the remaining amendments are technical; they clarify the Bill's provisions and ensure that the measure is consistent with existing legislation. I commend them to the House.

Alan Beith: I am grateful to the Minister; I am sorry, but I was detained outside the Chamber for a moment. I just want to say that decisions about the creation of parish councils in unparished places are becoming urgent because of reorganisation—the fact that boroughs will be replaced by town councils. In that context, I hope that the Minister will manage to get off his desk the application for there to be a Berwick town council; it has been with the Department for some time. One of his predecessors had hoped to sign it off before leaving office, but that has not yet happened.
	 Lords amendment agreed to.
	 Lords amendments Nos. 108 to 138 agreed to.
	 Clause 117

Orders under Part 1 of Local Government Act 2000: Wales

Alistair Burt: Indeed. I greatly welcome the hon. Gentleman's intervention. Sadly, the history of the Standards Board is littered with abuse by councillors settling scores with each other, and vexatious cases, which have driven many of us to distraction, and led to Conservative Members' great concern about whether the Standards Board can be relied upon to do a good and effective job.
	We know that there are reforms in place. Our position is that we are agreeing to wait and see what they will produce, but we have hesitations about the Standards Board, as the Minister will be aware. However, we are looking all the time for avenues to close down unnecessary references—things that could be used that are totally contrary to the spirit of the board; things that do not pertain to elected members' actual activity, but which could be used in a trivial manner—and we are not certain.
	Let me quote briefly from the Joint Committee on Human Rights report, "Legislative Scrutiny: Fourth Progress Report", its eleventh report of the 2006-07 Session. Paragraph 1.19 states:
	"We see no reason why the Bill should not expressly state on its face the exact extent to which the code shall apply to private conduct by members, for example by providing that the only private conduct to which the code applies is conduct which has resulted in a criminal conviction. There is no reason, legal or otherwise, why such a limitation should only be contained in the code. On the contrary, in our view, there are very good reasons why such a limitation should be on the face of the Bill, to make it less likely in practice that the power will be exercised incompatibly with Articles 8 and 10."
	That is the area of hesitation for us. I would be grateful if the Minister could give the House an assurance that he believes that trivial and vexatious issues will not be caught up in the wording that is already in the Bill. Plainly it is not his intention that they should be, and it was not the intention of his noble Friends. However, we are unsure whether the wording in the Bill will not lead to the very concerns that I believe the hon. Member for Hazel Grove will raise, and which were raised in the other place and which we are raising now—that is, our main hesitation about the provisions that are in the Bill as an amendment.

Tom Levitt: The hon. Gentleman is right to pay credit to those who have contributed so much through CHCs and then PPI forums. However, does he accept that not every CHC was equally good, that they lacked coherence, and that there was a lack of scrutiny of operation? Today, the circumstances are different. Local authorities have a much improved scrutiny role, and there is a big grey area between health and social services and health care in general that needs to be subjected to that scrutiny. That is why things had to change, and the Bill now includes a mechanism to ensure higher standards of scrutiny across the board.

Stephen O'Brien: I accept that, as one might expect, the performance of CHCs was patchy, but the vast majority performed very well with well-qualified, well-trained and experienced people. Of course, there were exceptions to that rule. I will address a little later the national link—and, therefore, the national voice—that can be effective in helping to improve health care.
	It remains unfortunate that the Government decided to introduce these provisions in a portmanteau Bill, rather than in a Bill specifically sponsored by Health Ministers. Conservative shadow Health Ministers here and in the other place have achieved much in making this Bill workable, but we might have had a more effective discussion of the arguments at stake if the Bill had had a pure health and patient focus. I must put on the record that our support for these amendments is also without prejudice to our NHS autonomy and accountability Bill. In keeping with our commitment to avoiding organisational upheaval, we would not abolish LINks, but we would seek to give them enhanced inspection powers and independence from local authorities. The Bill as amended gives them their own budgets, which is a step in the right direction, but not enough.
	The amendment to clause 223 on co-operation between LINks is a welcome concession from the Government. Although it does not establish a national voice—to return to the point made by the hon. Member for High Peak (Tom Levitt)—as robust as the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health, or the health watch body that we will seek to establish through our NHS autonomy and accountability Bill, the Government's recognition that an exclusively local voice is simply not effective is welcome. We wait, however, to see whether this amounts to anything in reality. We lost something of a national voice when we lost CHCs, and I share the hon. Gentleman's hope that that absence will be addressed. We have searched in vain in any of the Government's more recent pronouncements—not least the new health and social care regulations, announced by the Secretary of State today—for comfort that such a move will happen. We had hoped that he would remind us how wonderful it would be to have some scrutiny that was independent from the national health service. All of us remember the wonderful work done by CHCs when they produced important and influential national reports, such the one on bedwatch.
	I would also like to draw the House's attention to the new clauses inserted after clauses 223 and 227. The former makes provisions for governance of LINks and the latter for transitional arrangements to cover the period between the abolition of PPI forums and the establishment of LINks. I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen), who met my noble Friend the Earl Howe and acceded to the force of his arguments on those points.
	It was important to avoid the danger that LINks would simply be a collection of more random people who would volunteer, thus the amendment wrested from the Government was to ensure that the Bill defines a system of governance: decision making; representation; authority; bodies having their own budgets; and a commitment for regulations to be amended accordingly. Again, that does not go as far as we would have liked to establish true independence. Those who are feeling most vulnerable, who need support and scrutiny of how the health service works in their case, need to be able to trust the bodies. Independence invokes trust more readily than something that is not seen to be independent.
	On the latter new clause on transitional arrangements, our concern remains that there are no provisions for ensuring that local authorities discharge their duty to put in place transitional arrangements. I would be grateful if the Minister could assure us that he will take personal responsibility for the provision of adequate scrutiny in the transitional period.
	We have continuing reservations about the extent of the power and independence of LINks. We welcome part 14, as amended, and we of course congratulate my noble and hon. Friends on the important concessions that they have obtained from the Government. They were outlined in the Minister's statement, and it cannot be often that he has to list at least 10 amendments that have been the subject of considerable debate. It is important to recognise that we will continue in the next Session the debate about the accountability that will be the subject of the scrutiny apparatus for the NHS, and about how local government and people, particularly patients, are involved. That will be done through what we anticipate will be the health and social care Bill and our own NHS autonomy and accountability Bill. I confirm that, in the light of that, Conservative Members do not intend to divide the House, and we trust that this part of the Bill will speed on its journey.

David Taylor: There is more merit in that particular justification, but the first one that my hon. Friend chose to use was not especially strong. It is an approach that has been used elsewhere in Government: in the coerced stock transfer of council houses away from good housing authorities because a number of authorities have not been adequate in the past. The same also applied in relation to the PPI forums in Leicestershire, which followed the CHCs. They, too, were effective, well supported by volunteers and professional. Over the years that they existed, they did an exceptionally good job. I have some contacts with key people at the head of those PPIs, some of whom are former work colleagues, and I do not accept that it was necessary to scrap them, but the Bill will do just that.
	I have been fact finding about the attitude of the volunteers involved in the PPIs to see what they think of the Bill now it has reached the final leg of its passage through Parliament. There is good news for the Minister, and I know that he would expect that. The broad view is that the Lords have made some useful improvements in this section of the Bill, but I seek assurances from the Minister in three specific areas. If he is unable to respond immediately, because the information is not available or the time is not sufficient, I hope that he will write to me with the reassurances that I seek.
	Firstly, because LINks are based on local authorities, there is a serious risk that the excellent work done by some of the PPIs—I instance an acute PPI forum, the foundation ones and those for mental health trusts—in Leicestershire, and no doubt elsewhere, will be diluted or lost in the creation of the LINks. I hope to hear more from the Minister about how he intends to ensure that LINks set up joint arrangements to maintain and enhance the work that has been so well received and of such a high standard in my area.
	Secondly, the Bill is vague, perhaps inevitably so, on the membership of LINks. It would be impractical for that to continue for a lengthy period. Will the Minister say what the nature of the guidance will be to circumvent that problem? We cannot be certain that LINks, with their new membership, will be as effective as the bodies that they are replacing.
	My third and final point is that various reassurances were given, and promises made, in the other place about how the governance of LINks will be robust and improved, and that firm guidance and detailed regulations will be provided to bring that about. I would like to know the Minister's intended approach to that and the proposed sequence of events.
	We are on community health councils mark 2, to a certain extent, and no one wants LINks to be set up to fail. It is hugely important that they have the scrutiny role that their two predecessor organisations were designed to bring to the NHS, but much depends on the guidance and regulations. They will probably be floated in late on a Thursday evening and go undiscussed by the main Chamber, but we want to know what the Minister's approach will be and how he intends to avoid the risks and concerns to which I have briefly alluded.

Tony Baldry: Before the debate concludes, it should never be forgotten that what has happened—
	 It being four hours after the commencement of proceedings, Mr. Deputy Speaker  put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day].
	 Lords amendment No. 175 agreed to.
	 Mr. Deputy Speaker  then proceeded to put forthwit h the Questions necessary for the disposal of business to be concluded at that hour.
	 Lords amendments No. 176 to 251 agreed to.

Frank Dobson: Probably the most important function of a Member of Parliament is to try to right injustices that are done to any of our constituents. The injustice that I wish to highlight this evening concerns the extradition to Spain of my constituent, Joseph Mendy, under the provisions of the Extradition Act 2003.
	The Act gave legal force to the European extradition warrant which, we were told, was intended to simplify and speed up—I emphasise speed up—the extradition of people accused of serious organised crime, such as terrorism, drug trafficking and people trafficking. I strongly supported such action to counter serious organised crime, but the application of the European extradition warrant to my constituent was wrong-headed, ludicrously disproportionate and vastly delayed, and led to serious injustice.
	In November 2003, Joe Mendy, then aged 19, went on holiday with two friends to Fuerteventura in the Canary islands. On the second Friday of their stay, Joe Mendy was sitting by the hotel swimming pool when a number of Spanish police officers appeared and insisted that he accompany them to the hotel room that he was sharing with his friends. The police searched Joe Mendy, his two friends and their hotel room. They were taken to a police station, where they were charged with counterfeiting four €5O notes, one of which the police claimed had been passed in a bar and another in a shop. One note was in the possession of one of Joe Mendy's friends, and the other was found among other notes in a drawer in the hotel room.
	All three young men were held in custody separately until the Sunday. Joe Mendy was asked repeatedly how and where he was printing counterfeit euro notes. The police checked whether Joe had paid with forged euros when he bought a watch. He had not. During this time the three young men were given only one bread roll and water, and were subject to racist abuse and told that things were made especially hard for black English in the Spanish criminal justice system—a threat borne out by events.
	Joe Mendy and his two friends appeared in court on the following Monday and were told to report back to the court at 9 am the next morning. On returning to their hotel room, they found that most of their belongings had been stolen. None have been recovered. On returning to court on time the next day, they were told that they would be released, that they would hear further from the Spanish authorities and that, in the meantime, they could return to Britain. Their passports, after being copied, were returned to them. All this happened, I emphasise, in 2003.
	Nothing more was heard by any of the young men until March this year, when officers from the Serious Organised Crime Agency in this country called at Joe Mendy's family home in Camden Town. Joe's mother explained that her son was living in Liverpool. The officers gave her their phone number, which she passed on to Joe, who telephoned the police and volunteered to return to London. The police did not get back to him, so he called again and was told that the police in Liverpool would be dealing with his case. The upshot was that on 28 March this year Joe Mendy was served a European arrest warrant, held in police cells in Liverpool overnight and brought to London in a police vehicle for a court appearance the next day.
	Joe Mendy was then released on bail. He duly appealed against the extradition. As the Minister and the House know, this involves the UK courts doing nothing more than going through the motions, because there are virtually no grounds on which to challenge a European extradition warrant. At the court hearing on 3 July, the extradition was duly allowed to proceed. On 18 July, Joe Mendy went under his own steam to Heathrow to report to the UK police, who handed him over to the Spanish police, who accompanied him to Madrid.
	At the subsequent court appearance in Madrid, Joe Mendy was denied bail on the bizarre grounds that he was a flight risk. By this time, the Spanish judicial holidays were commencing, so my innocent constituent of exemplary good character was held in the Spanish jail over the summer. During that time, Joe discovered that the Spanish authorities, despite knowing his UK address and the addresses of his two friends, had followed up the initial hearing in the Canary islands by writing to them all after they had returned to the UK—not at their home addresses, but at their hotel at Fuerteventura.
	After spending almost two months on remand in the Spanish jail, Joe appeared before a Spanish judge on 15 September. His Spanish lawyer advised him that if he continued to plead not guilty, he was likely to be held in jail for at least a further year before his case came to trial. If, however, he pleaded guilty, he would, because of his exemplary record in Britain, get a suspended sentence and a small fine. Understandably in such dreadful circumstances, he pleaded guilty and got a two-year suspended sentence and a €600 fine. Joe Mendy was released and is now back in the United Kingdom.
	All that happened despite the fact that he was never in possession of any forged euro notes and had no idea that any notes were forgeries. The outrage visited on Joe Mendy did not end there. He had won a place at Liverpool John Moores university, but could not take up his place this year because of delays resulting from his Spanish misadventure. Following representations from me, the university was prepared to allow Joe to start his course late and try to catch up, but Joe has accepted what I believe to be the sound advice of Professor Michael Brown, the university vice-chancellor, that it would be better for him to take up his place next year. The university has undertaken to provide Joe with advice and help in the meantime so that he hits the ground running in autumn 2008. The university thus qualifies as the only bit of officialdom to display some common sense and humanity in this case.
	The treatment of Joe Mendy is a disgrace; it is exactly the sort of incident that brings European institutions into disrepute. Sending letters to the hotel instead of the home addresses reveals incompetent administrative procedures in the Spanish judicial system. Following its error, it resorted to the use of the European extradition warrant. However, not all the fault lies with the Spanish authorities—I have discovered that they issued the warrant on 14 June 2004 and that an English-language version, of which I have a copy, has a date stamp showing that it was received by the UK central authority on 25 June 2004.
	What happened to the warrant between June 2004 and March 2007? Was it mislaid? I would like to think that the Serious Organised Crime Agency was too busy on more important matters—it certainly should have been. Whatever the explanation, a three-year delay in the very procedure that was supposed to speed up extradition is surely unacceptable.
	After the warrant was eventually served, the judge in Britain responded by deciding that a British citizen of exemplary character should be returned to Spain in July, despite it being known that the Spanish judicial holidays were coming up—meaning that Joe would probably have to stay in jail—and without recommending to her Spanish counterpart that Joe Mendy be granted bail in Spain. That was followed by a Spanish judge deciding that Joe Mendy was a flight risk, despite his never having displayed any such tendencies at any stage. That, in turn, was followed by Joe Mendy being pressured into pleading guilty by the prospect of a further period of a year on remand in a Spanish jail.
	All that was over four 50 euro notes, none of which were found in his possession; all that was done under powers that this House granted to deal with serious organised crime that crosses international boundaries. I repeat: serious organised crime. That is made clear on the face of the warrant served on Joe Mendy. It lists 32 categories of crime it is intended to cover, including terrorism, trafficking in radioactive materials, sabotage, unlawful seizure of aircraft and ships, sexual exploitation of children, trafficking in drugs, trafficking in people and trafficking in weapons. It also includes hostage-taking, murder and laundering the proceeds of crime. I have to admit that it includes the counterfeiting of currency, including the euro, but did anyone seriously believe that it was intended to cover accusations relating to the innocent possession of four forged €50 notes?
	Sadly, the law that we passed does not require the authorities to use their common sense or to have a sense of proportion. Having being passed by the House on the argument that it would speed up extradition, our law does not demand that the authorities proceed expeditiously. Instead, it demonstrably permits them to take nearly four years to crank up this draconian machinery. Have not the Spanish police and judiciary anything better to do? Was this the best use of Britain's Serious Organised Crime Agency? What happened was not a crime, was not serious, and most certainly was not organised.
	If the Spanish and UK authorities were so keen on this extradition, what about the other two young men? Neither Joe Mendy nor I want them to be treated as badly as he has been treated, but someone must explain why he was singled out for special mistreatment. I hope the Minister will be able to clear up with the Spanish and the UK authorities how and why this whole mess came about and get them to apologise for their mistakes. I also think that my constituent should be compensated for the injustices that have been done to him.
	The catalogue of incompetence that I have outlined has caused great injustice to my constituent, Joe Mendy. More generally, it has cost British and Spanish taxpayers a fortune in money and diverted the efforts of police and others who should have had better things to do with their time. It has brought the European extradition warrant system into disrepute. I believe that this House should insist on a change in the procedures so that common sense and a sense of proportion are included in the process. Nothing less will do.